The quality of the story presented is good in terms of the discussion of the political battle going on. What is missing is the larger import that this topic has on the more massive issue of universal healthcare coverage that will be so important in the presidential race.

Good points made about the political danger in a presidential veto of a measure that would help kids be healthy. The story stops short of talking about the larger issue--how will we deal with the issue of universal healthcare coverage for all Americans.

Story makes a good point about the fact that the healthcare plans put forth by Democratic front-runners are going to run into difficulties from the small business owners who will have to fund much of the premiums for the coverage mandated. More detail about the cost of the plans and the sources of the funds would have been helpful

The story highlights the necessity of having an honest and complete national discussion of the pros and cons of universal healthcare coverage. It points out the need for honesty by all parties in the costs and benefits.

The author recognizes the importance of individual healthcare responsibility in the success of universal healthcare coverage. He also recognizes that most people have the inaccurate view that universal coverage will mean a government-run program that does nothing to foster individual responsibility.

Good overview of the powers of the FDA and how they have not been used wisely in the past to protect consumers. The story references some of the key players in the legislative battle, but does not go into much detail about how powerful the drug companies have been in the past in the FDA processes.

This piece is a good example of how a journalist can use the evidence drawn from an experimental program in one locale to foster discussion about a larger issue. That issue is the current debate on how we are going to bring some better level of healthcare to 47 million uninsured Americans. The story points out the difficulties of administration, recor-keeping and quality control. Stories like these will move the debate forward in a way that can be based on reality, rather than sound bites and scare tactics that seem to permeate much of the discussion.

Part of the title of the story--"tax the rich," makes it one that provokes anger in some before they ever read it. The publication, the notoriously conservative Fort Worth Star Telegram, obviously wanted to put its slant on the "Hillary Plan" at the outset. Nonetheless, the story is fair in its limited information on the plans proposed by the top three Democratic candidates.

The story accurately points out some of the difficulties that will be encountered by any candidate who proposes a plan for universal healthcare insurance coverage. It describes the problems that the candidates will have in explaining to the electorate the nuances of the plans. What it leaves out is the problems which will be encountered by any plan that does not meet with the approval of the insurance lobbyists, who fought and won against Hillary Clinton's 1993-94 efforts in this arena.

This story is very good on informing the reader of the problem that the FDA has in policing new drugs and their adverse effects on consumers. What the story is missing is the back end--the process that the drug manufacturers go through to determine adverse effects, and whether that process is adequate to insure safety and efficacy of the drugs.

There are few issues more important to the American people, and a working of a democracy, than an appropriate balance between the power of the government and the liberty of its governed. This story seems to thoroughly present an area that is overlooked by many in this time when we are prone to overgrant government authority at the expense of protections for citizens' liberties. Many will rationalize that government intrusion into our private affairs should be ok if we have nothing to hide, but who is to say that government knows the standards of what is right and wrong? If I decide that what you are doing is bad, and a majority of Americans agree with me, ergo what you are doing is bad and we should be able to check up on you. ... More »

This story is a good report on how the pharmaceutical industry uses powerful marketing campaigns to launch their products for use. Recent data shows that while drug-coated stents can decrease the rate at which patients need to return for new heart procedures, they also slightly raise the risk of long-term clotting over the older, cheaper stents. While stents were safe and effective when used on the subset of heart patients for which they were initially approved, a large number of patients who fall outside those guidelines still receive drug-coated stents. The article does not delve into the extent to which other pharmaceutical companies utilize the same practices in marketing their drugs and medical devices.

This story, while pointing out the hate that seems to permeate much of the political dialogue, leaves out a discussion of the central query the facts should raise--who likes to listen to the venom spewed by the dialogue? While the three leading Republican candidates denounced Coulter for the comment, it was surely known by the CPAC conventioneers that she would make some venomous comments. They came to hear her and they applauded her when she was finished, and they will invite her back again. The story points out the eight-year history of Coulter spewing like a viper--why would they think she would do any differently on this occasion.

The story is obviously on all of the media outlets, and MSNBC is covering it in the same way as others. What seems to be left out of all of the reporting is a discussion of a central point about the role of journalists in communications about the workings of the democracy. The way that the administration was able to work and manipulate the press into burying the public's collective head in the sand over this war in Iraq is only the tip of the iceberg in this larger question--how much does the media really persuade or perhaps misinform the public about critical issues.

This story is an important one, as it shows the dangers of increasing outsourcing to private industry to serve governmental functions. The story relies on good sources within the industry, several governmental sources, and private sector people knowledgable about the issue. The risks posed by many of the chemicals used in products used every day are unknown to most people, and can have devastating effects. When we know that people are exposed to hundreds of chemicals that have been shown to skew the reproductive systems of newborn lab animals and could be causing similar damage in humans, we must be attentive to stories like these to help protect future generations.

This topic is extremely important, as we must be ever mindful of the FDA officials' inability to resist temptations placed upon them by the pharmaceutical industry. Over 80% of the studies done on new drug safety are privately funded, placing extreme pressure on the FDA to produce "good" results--the results desired by the funder. The questions about the potential risks of these new drugs must be answered convincingly, and must show a high degree of safety, before the healthcare consumers can have sufficient confidence in them.

The story reports an important point in the debate over medical malpractice reform--the injured patients that will be left holding the bag when the justice system is taken away.

The fact that we even have this story to comment upon is symptomatic of a much larger problem--that someone like Anne Coulter is still taking center stage on an issue of such importance as the societal perception of the appropriate rights and responsibilities of gays and lesbians. Reporting on what was said, by whom, in what forum, and what response was made are all of lesser import than the larger question--how should our democracy handle the question of balancing the rights of this minority against the rights of those opposed to this minority. It may be as central to our understanding of democracy as the race and women's righgts issue. That is the larger question--not what was said and who said it.

The article does not purport to be in depth. It is rather a report on a poll about a very important issue. It is a good report in that it shows what appears to be a legititimate poll on a topic of serious import, accessible and affordable healthcare. The poll results demonstrate a finding that is perhaps startling--that many people would be willing to pay higher taxes to have affordable healthcare insurance.

This story is a fabulous and articulate synopsis of the state of the pharmaceutical marketing strategies of the big drug companies. It details the efforts to which a drug company will go to influence doctors to prescribe their drugs, even when those drugs may be ineffective or even dangerous. The key conclusion is this: Unless more people become educated about these abuses, the government won't become interested in reform because they, too, are beholden to drug companies.

The article points out an important issue that is at the core of this administrations failures--any dissent or even questioning of the administration's policies or motives will be met with a disturbing fate. Lackeys replace competent dedicated public servants. Why else would we have ended up with Michael Brown at FEMA?

this is a shoddily written, shabbily researched, and poorly analyzed story. First, nobody is claiming there is not any Al-Qaeda in Iraq now. The truth is that our troops being in Iraq is the reason that Al-Qaeda came there themselves. the CIA has found no evidence that Al-Qaeda was there before we were, and certainly not given haven by Saddam. To say that Al-Qaeda's leader "is reported" to have been there in 2001 says nothing factual. This writer obviously simply wants to present a view, with no teeth, no research and no knowledge of what he professes to write about. On a substantive matter, is he proposing that our soldiers just shoot all the Arab-looking people in Iraq so that we might get a few Al-Qaeda in the process?

the story is a fine example of what journalism is not supposed to be. When there are 190,000 people killed each year by hospital errors, 1.5 million harmed by medication error, and 90,000 killed by hospital-acquired infections, it is ludicrous to fish this story out and use it as an example of what appears, at first blush, to be a frivolous case. Why not concentrate on the cases of those seriously hurt or killed by medical error, of which there are more than enough.

The story, while accurate and on its face balanced, it fails to take into account the inconsistency of the Republican Senators when they use the 60-vote rule in their favor. They continually cirticized Democrats for using the same rule to block federal judge appointments. The Republicans at that time claimed that the judges deserved an "up or down vote." This story fails to mention the inconsistency of Republicans when they use the same rule to block important Iraq debate and policy positions

The story is well-written and thorough. What it seems to leave out is the perspective that GWB had his way with the media for five years, and that it was not until his policies showed strain and failure that he was seriously questioned. Until then, he was given a free ride, and that is where the system broke down, not as a result of any war with the media.

The article is well-written and informative, but seems to be a veiled attack on Hillary Clinton and her positions on healthcare. She has never made a secret of her desire to raise healthcare quality and access. The story leaves out an important piece of legislation that she co-sponsored with Senator Obama, called the National Medic Act, S.B. 1784, which she was never able to get the Republican Controlled Senate to bring to committee hearings. This story fails to mention the fight she has fought for 15 years on the healthcare front.

These two veteran politicians, both renowned for their ability to work in a bi-partisan manner, display a lot of insight into the candidates, their strengths, weaknesses, constituencies, and positions. NPR again gets a plum interview.

This story is well-written, accurate and gives both sides of the issue. It is concerning an issue that all should know about--how Insurance Companies' Propaganda Is Corrupting the healthcare world and the justice system. Bush's ties to the corporate and insurance lobbyists should make us understand why he takes the position he takes.

The story really seems to be nothing more than an unsupported attack on print journalism, based on a preference of the writer for blogging. While blogging is important, cutting edge, helpful for delivery of content, and beneficial to those of us who live the news every day, the print journalists are still an extremely important source of news for millions of Americans, and bloggers would be nowhere if not for the Thomas Paines, John Adams, Ben Franklins and James Madisons of the world, who were the original writers of this country's important thoughts of liberty and freedom. This story is merely one viewpoint that does not take into account the other viewpoints, which I consider to be not the best of journalism.

The story is nothing more than a diatribe against what the author perceived as "liberal" ideas. There is no substance, no facts, no data, no studies to rely upon, and no real guts to any of the statements made in the article.

this story is an excellent example of the reporting that we need to bring public awareness to the huge problem that we have with the lack of safety of much of the healthcare system. The insurance companies have done their best to blame patients for the high cost of healthcare, yet the real culprit is the billions of dollars of year that must be spent on care necessitated by treatment of those injured by medical mistakes.

This is a necessary and pointed commentary on the dangerous course we have been on with GWB at the helm. It points out the importance of taking seriously our constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.

The story is good journalism. One deficiency is that it leaves out the fact that the central recommendation of the ISG was diplomacy, and that the administration, with Rice's comments, has now rejected that recommendation.

The story is fair and balanced. I wish it would have had some examples of ways in which the current rules have impacted specific legislation, such as the inability to pass rules to help us provide better, safer and more affordable healthcare. All in all, the article is fair and seems accurate.

This is good journalism for several reasons. First, it does not praise or condemn, only report in a complete way. Second, it is about a topic of great interest to most people that might not otherwise be reported because of the hype with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Balanced, factual, fair, current and interesting to a large number of people nationally.